State v. Sanders, 151 So. 3d 160

Defendant Robert B. Sanders (age 21) pled guilty to indecent behavior with a juvenile (victim was 12) pursuant to a plea agreement; original charge was aggravated rape.
Facts: after meeting at a swimming area, defendant engaged in sexual acts with the 12‑year‑old (fondling and oral sex); text messages and victim/medical letters were in the record.
Plea accepted after Boykin advisement; sentence hearing followed a presentence investigation (PSI) and victim impact/medical letters.
At sentencing the court considered PSI, letters, and text messages and initially imposed 22.5 years (first 2 years without benefits); on reconsideration the court reduced sentence to 20 years at hard labor (first 2 years without benefits).
Defendant appealed, arguing the sentence was excessive and that denial of a continuance to allow subpoena/cross‑examination of victim’s health care providers violated his due process/right to confrontation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Excessiveness of sentence	State: sentence within statutory range and court considered aggravating/mitigating factors	Sanders: 20 years is excessive for a first felony offender with good reputation; court should have reduced further	Affirmed: court considered La. C.Cr.P. art. 894.1 factors; not a manifest abuse of discretion; plea reduced exposure so higher sentence permissible
Denial of continuance / confrontation at sentencing	State: defendant had PSI and letters days before sentencing and later had opportunity on reconsideration	Sanders: denial prevented meaningful opportunity to subpoena and cross‑examine health care providers and rebut victim impact letters	Affirmed: defendant received PSI and materials in time to rebut; court later granted reconsideration and considered defense evidence; no violation of PSI access or due process

State v. Smith, 433 So.2d 688 (La. 1983) (trial judge need not recite every factor of art. 894.1 if record shows adequate consideration)
State v. Lanclos, 419 So.2d 475 (La. 1982) (adequate factual basis for sentence obviates remand despite imperfect art. 894.1 compliance)
State v. Coleman, 574 So.2d 477 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1991) (PSI disclosure rules and defendant's right to access nonconfidential PSI material before sentencing)
State v. Richardson, 377 So.2d 1029 (La. 1979) (purpose of PSI access is to allow defendant opportunity to deny, rebut, or explain adverse information)
State v. Germany, 981 So.2d 792 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2008) (when plea substantially reduces exposure, trial court has broad discretion to impose maximum for the pleaded offense)